Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

7

There are a couple of different ways to answer your first question. I will attempt an answer from a linguistics perspective, specifically with regards to the lexical aspect of the verb in question. The dominant perspective on lexical aspect of verb tenses for the last few decades has been Actionsart. This deals with how the verb interacts with time. ...


6

I don't think there is much to debate about what was graciously given or bestowed (ἐχαρίσθη not ἐδόθη). The οὐ μόνον ("not only") in antithesis to ἀλλὰ καὶ ("but also") seems to clearly indicate not only one thing but also another was given to the Christians. That is, it was graciously given to them by God (cp. 1 Cor. 2:12) not only (1) to believe in Christ, ...


6

It's a great question, and the truth is that the sentence is fairly ambiguous despite attempts to translate it otherwise (as in the ChaBaD translation brought in @crownjewel82's answer). Here's the verse - note that the closest we get to punctuation are the cantillation marks, which have a zaqef qaton (a minor disjunctive, like a comma or semicolon) at the ...


5

The aorist tense "presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence."1 Wallace explains, This contrasts with the present and imperfect, which portray the action as an ongoing process. It may be helpful to think of the aorist as taking a snapshot of the action while the ...


5

It is Passive The verb is ἐκρατοῦντο (ekratounto), which is the imperfect passive indicative 3rd plural of the verb κρατέω (krateō), which in this context has the idea of "restrain."1 However, it is not that they did not "see" Jesus (v.15) in some respect, but that when they saw Him, they did not "know" (ἐπιγνῶναι; epignōnai) it was Him, hence the NRSV ...


4

May Viably Be Construed as Either Middle or Passive Voice Your observation about the grammar of the verb compared to the English translations is very astute. Unfortunately, I do not think grammar itself will entirely answer this question. And context fits either option as being viable as well. If Passive, then in a Sense, All Three of Your Ideas are ...


4

Those are adjectives, not pronouns. They are plural neuter nominatives. "And all those who are mine are yours, and all of yours are mine..." BibleHub is right. It does jive with the KJV: because they are adjectives and not pronouns, the plural they carry is the plural of the things they are modifying. In other words, they act like other plural adjectives. ...


4

וְשֶׂ֣רֶט לָנֶ֗פֶשׁ לֹ֤א תִתְּנוּ֙ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶ֔ם וּכְתֹ֣בֶת קַֽעֲקַ֔ע לֹ֥א תִתְּנ֖וּ בָּכֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֽה Grammatically speaking, "the dead" isn't even mentioned in the original Hebrew text. It was simply "the soul." In Hebraic thought, the soul is the unified body and spirit. The soul can be dead, or the soul can be alive. The text doesn't say one ...


4

This is the same phrase that appears in Ex 34:6, the interaction between God and Moshe after the golden calf. In both places אֶ֖רֶךְ אַפַּ֣יִם is sometimes translated "slow to anger" (though there is no infinitive verb there) and sometimes "long-suffering". אֶ֖רֶךְ is Strong's H750, "prolong, lengthen, draw out" (etc). אַפַּ֣יִם is H639. The lexicon ...


4

"Asher" is used with past-tense hence making it past-tensive. "Ahavti" with "kametz" alef and hey properly means past-tense as well. However, it can be used as ongoing past-tense which applies in the present which as you pointed out its the easiest understandable meaning. Now "וְאֶשְׁתַּֽעֲשַׁ֥ע" is past and present tense (ongoing past-tense almost like ...


4

Excellent question. Strong has good references: אני ,אנכי. Gesenius discusses this here at the beginning and in the footnotes. It appears that אנכי is the more "original", and אני is a derived, localised form, based both on comparison to other languages, and the fact that אנכי is more common in earlier texts, and becomes less so in later texts. ...


4

The most obvious answer seems to be euphony. Write that clause in the masculine form - it doesn't ring smoothly as all, and sounds to my ear less balanced in its lacking of syllables. You're reading a verse from Psalms - it's a poem, euphony is a crucial element. These weren't verses studied in Bible school, they were songs sung by artists. The word אור is ...


3

The translation from chabad.org makes things a bit clearer. The Hebrew text is available there as is a commentary on the text. You shall not make cuts in your flesh for a person [who died]. You shall not etch a tattoo on yourselves. I am the Lord. It's easy to see that there are two separate sentences containing two distinct commands. The first is ...


3

Biblical Hebrew doesn't have tense, it has aspect. English doesn't have aspect, it has tense. So, translators are in a pickle. The 'perfect' aspect (exemplified by אָהָֽבְתִּי) is about completion, not point-in-time. However, this is poetry. In poetic BH poetry, just about every rule gets bent sooner or later in favor 'what it sounds like'. So translators ...


3

There are a few opinions in the literature (see Fassberg's paper on the lengthened imperative which has a huge number of excellent references). A summary of the opinions presented looks more or less as follows: None Emphasis (paralleled to the Arabic), similar to the cohortitive meaning Emphasis originally, although the distinction became more stylistic ...


3

We need to explore the word אף more closely. It has two general meanings: nose, face, nostril (Genesis 2:7, Proverbs 30:33, Genesis 28:12, Samuel I 25:23, Chronicles II 7:3) and anger (Deuteronomy 29:27, Proverbs 30:33, Daniel 11:20, Zephaniah 2:2, Genesis 30:2). Why this is the case is left to your interpretation. On this point I agree with this answer - ...


3

This answer is largely adapted from Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 1993. For more see pages 237ff. The main point of this verse is to apply Psalm 95:7-11 and set the stage for the soon-to-be-quoted Genesis 2:2 in the next verse. It is helpful to consider the context: Let us fear therefore, lest perhaps ...


3

Robertson says, "See Isaiah 66:24." Reading Isaiah 66:24: Then they will go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die And their fire will not be quenched; And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind. ...makes it pretty clear that "their" refers to "the men who have transgressed against ...


3

The verb דִּבֵּר (dibber), which is conjugated in binyan Pi'el, is commonly followed by prepositions to indicate the person to or with whom the speaker is speaking. For example, אֶל (Gen. 8:15), לְ (Jdg. 14:7), עִם (Gen. 31:29), אֵת (Gen. 23:8), עַל (Jer. 6:10), and of course, בְּ (Hab. 2:1). In Num. 12:1 and 12:8, the context implies that Aharon and Miryam ...


3

The preposition ב can be translated in many different ways (in, with, through, against, while, when, for, by etc.) depending on how it functions in its context. In num 12:1 it makes good sense to translate it as "against" but the case could be made for translating it as simply "to" or "with." In v2, the case could be made for translating it as simply "to ...


3

This verse has a parallel in Matt. 26:46, in which the same verb ἄγωμεν occurs. The particular conjugation ἄγωμεν also occurs in the following verses. It is the equivalent of the English phrase, "Let's go..." Mark 1:38 John 11:7 John 11:15 John 14:31 Thayer describes this usage sense as intransitive (lacking a direct object).1 However, it can be followed ...


3

Strictly Grammatical Look is Not Enough H3br3wHamm3r81's answer correctly points out the "οὐ μόνον ... ἀλλὰ καὶ" ("not only ... but also") wording in the verse, and correctly concludes "both" are granted. But that does not entirely answer the question of its meaning, because one must ask in what sense the verse is saying such is granted. There are at ...


3

The forms you likely learned are pronouns: 1st person, singular number (equivalent to English "I," "me") ἐγώ μου, ἐμοῦ μοι, ἐμοἰ με, ἐμέ 2nd person, singular number (equivalent to English "you") σύ σου, σοῦ σοι, σοί σε, σέ However, the forms in John 17:10 are indeed adjectives, as Kazark mentioned, based on ...


3

To the grammarian it may seem like beating a dead horse to protest that the aorist does not necessarily reflect the nature of the action or event it covers. But the horse is not dead; he is very much alive and cavorting rather freely in exegetical and theological pastures. The fallacy of "theology in the aorist tense" stubbornly persists, even in the ...


3

A Study of Other Uses with ἐν in the NT There are 6 or 7 occurrences using ἐν in Scripture related to πιστεύω1 (depending on textual variant, which occurs in the verse in question), compared to roughly 46 using εἰς (I did not check for variants in these, hence "roughly") which are noting the thing/person that is believed (i.e. the content of what is ...


2

The "Constructio Praegnans" (lit., loaded-arrangement) provides one possible perspective, which Smyth (1920) describes in his Greek Grammar. He indicates that the "Constructio Praegnans" occurs with verbs of motion with tenses indicating completed action. If the "Constructio Praegnans" were relevant in the passage of John 3:15-16, notwithstanding that no ...


2

The verse appears as follows in the Greek New Testament. 1 Peter 4:6 (GNT) 6 εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη ἵνα κριθῶσι μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκὶ ζῶσι δὲ κατὰ θεὸν πνεύματι. [NOTE: Arland et al. (2012) note no variants of this verse extant.] There are three verbs in this verse: εὐαγγελίζω = Aorist Passive Indicative (3 person singular) = "the ...


2

We find even within scripture that there existed a heathen practice of cutting the flesh as part of an attempt to appeal to the gods, a kind of unholy sacrifice if you will. So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. (NIV 1 Kings 18:28) There are other references to cuttings ...


2

Frankly, I think it is a scribal error. Examination of the Samaritan Pentateuch reveals עלת instead of עלה. See: Blayney, Benjamini: Pentateuchus Hebraeo-Samaritanus, via Google Books, p. 415.


2

If you feel that עולה תמיד us the expected form then the second form is simply extended use of the construct form. Biblical Hebrew is fluid and is often flexible with the grammatical constructs, a sort of linguistic poetic licence (although usually adopted for reasons of preferential rhythm, and not arbitrarily). For a few examples where the construct state ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible